Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-25-00125-CV Tereza Kacerova, Appellant v. Trent Garrett, Appellee FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-22-007492 THE HONORABLE DANIELLA DESETA LYTTLE, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION After this appeal was set for submission, appellee Trent Garrett moved to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court in the underlying suit affecting the parent–child relationship (SAPCR) has rendered a final SAPCR order modifying the earlier final SAPCR order that is the subject of this appeal, granting Garrett’s Chapter 156 petition to modify. See generally Tex. Fam. Code §§ 156.001–.409.1 Garrett argues that the rendition of the new final order makes this appeal of the earlier order moot. We agree. See In re Reardon, 514 S.W.3d 919, 927–30 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, orig. proceeding); Blank v. Nuszen, No. 01-13-01061-CV, 2015 WL 4747022, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). 1That later final SAPCR modification order is the subject of this Court’s cause number 03-26-00414-CV. Appellant Tereza Kacerova argues that this appeal should not be dismissed because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render the new final SAPCR order because the earlier order was the subject of this pending appeal. Kacerova cites as support In re E.W.N. See generally 482 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.). The Eighth Court in E.W.N. concluded what Kacerova argues here—that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to render a final SAPCR order modify- ing an earlier final SAPCR order while the earlier order is the subject of a pending appeal. See id. at 152–57. But not only has E.W.N.’s analysis been rejected by the Second Court in Reardon, see 514 S.W.3d at 921–30 (concluding that trial court that has rendered final SAPCR order does not lack jurisdiction to hear petition to modify that order while that order is subject of pending appeal), it also has been abandoned by the Eighth Court itself, see Kom v. Kom, No. 08-24-00022-CV, 2025 WL 1057731, at *3 n.2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Apr. 8, 2025, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We are per- suaded by Reardon and thus conclude that the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to issue its later, final SAPCR modification order. See 514 S.W.3d at 921–30; accord Blank, 2015 WL 4747022, at *1–3; Hudson v. Markum, 931 S.W.2d 336, 337–38 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no writ). Because the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to render its later final order, its rendition of the later order means that this appeal of the earlier final SAPCR order is moot. See Blank, 2015 WL 4747022, at *3. We thus dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. __________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: August 27, 2026 2